Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Raju vs State on 1 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:20419]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 532/2018
Raju S/o Shri Dalla Ji Meena, Resident Of Amba Mata Ghati,
Titardi, Police Station Hiran Magri, Udaipur, District Udaipur Raj.
At Present Lodged At Central Jail, Udaipur
----Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot with
Ms. Vandana Prajapati,
Mr. Amit Kumar Purohit
Mr. Bhawani Singh Sodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
REPORTABLE Judgment
Order Reserved on : 25/04/2025
Date of pronouncement: 01/05/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment
and order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Sessions
Case No. 171/2015 whereby, the learned Judge convicted the
petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to
undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.
50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one
year simple imprisonment.
Brief facts of the case are that a written report was filed by
the complainant Smt. Bhanwari Bai W/o Dhula ji stating therein
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (2 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
that her daughter Mohini was married to Raju S/o Dallaji. Their
marriage took place about 14 years ago and out of the said
wedlock three children were born. The complainant alleged that
Raju frequently subjected his daughter to physical abuse,
particularly when under the influence of alcohol. On 10.06.2015,
she received an information that slippers of some lady were lying
near the well of Mangi lal Patel. Upon inquiring about the
whereabouts of her daughter, Smt. Bhanwari Bai learned from her
granddaughters that their father had physically assaulted their
mother the previous night, prompting her to leave the home and
subsequently fail to return. It is alleged that daughter of the
complainant may have taken her own life by jumping into the well.
On the basis of said report, the police registered FIR No.
324/2015 for offence under Section 306 IPC and commenced
investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against
the present petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC.
Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur
whereby, arguments on the charge were heard. Thereafter, the
learned Judge ordered to frame charges against the petitioner for
offences under Sections 306 IPC.
The prosecution in its support examined fifteen witnesses in
all and exhibited various documents. The statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded who examined three witnesses on the
defence side.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that no
offence under Sections 306 of IPC is made out against the
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (3 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
petitioner as there is no evidence pointing out complicity of the
petitioner in commission of offence. It is argued that the marriage
took place about 14 years ago and out of said wedlock, three
children were born and they were living in joint family. The
complainant, mother of deceased has levelled casual and omnibus
allegations with regard to harassment but did not state anything
concrete to establish abetment to commit suicide. In her
statement, during cross-examination she has admitted that she
never saw deceased and appellant quarrelling and she does not
know as to why she committed suicide by jumping into the well. It
is further argued that as per postmortem report, the cause of
death of Mohini was ante-mortem drowning and no injuries were
found on her body which can establish that deceased was beaten
by accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant
instigated or aided the commission of suicide. It is therefore,
prayed that the conviction and sentence passed against the
accused appellant may be set aside.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It
is argued that the cumulative behaviour of the accused towards
the wife compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The learned
PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with
the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any
compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (4 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
From the perusal of FIR and documents on record, the
allegation against the present appellant is that he harassed and
tortured the deceased Mohini, due to which she committed
suicide. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 306 IPC reads
as under :--
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine."
For commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC,
abetment is the necessary thing, which has been defined in
Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC, reads as under:--
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a
thing, who- (First)- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly)-Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(Thirdly)- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,
or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound
to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act"
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (5 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is
clear that there must be: (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in
close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear
mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
The core element of Section 306 of IPC is the intentional
abetment of suicide. Thus, for framing a charge for the offence
under section 306 IPC, the learned court below is to consider
whether the abettor intentionally instigated or aided the
commission of the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or
strained relationships do not suffice to establish abetment. In case
of Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and
Another Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:
"8. Reading these sections together would indicate that
there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or
intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'. When we apply these
three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused
must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or
engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the
person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act)
intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.
...
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence
recorded by the courts below and the legal position
established through statutory and judicial
pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no
proximate link between the marital dispute in the
marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission
of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any
evidence to substantiate the allegations against the
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (6 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
appellant. The appellant has not played any active role
or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the
deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of
the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the
deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during
investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the
appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no
allegation against the appellant of suggesting the
deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the
commission of suicide by her husband.”
A plethora of Apex Court decisions have crystallized the law
of abetment. Abetment involves the mental process of instigating
or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To
bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment
would require the positive act of instigation or intentionally aiding.
Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to
abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a
position he/ she would have no other option but to commit
suicide.
As per the prosecution’s case, the appellant habitually
consumed alcohol and subjected his wife, Mohini, to physical
violence, ultimately culminating in her suicide as a result of
ongoing harassment. To evaluate the legality and soundness of the
findings and conclusions reached by the learned trial Court, it is
imperative to re-examine the evidence presented by the
prosecution.
PW/1 Roop lal is merely a motbir witness. PW/2 Bhanwari
Bai, the mother of the deceased, testified that her daughter was
married to the appellant approximately 14 years prior. She
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (7 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
claimed that after some time into the marriage, the appellant
began to physically abuse her daughter. On the day in question,
she heared about a pair of women’s slippers found near the well,
prompting her to immediately visit the appellant’s residence,
where she was informed by her granddaughters that Mohini had
not returned home the previous night. Upon reaching the well, she
recognized the slippers as belonging to her daughter. However, in
cross-examination, she acknowledged that she had never
witnessed any quarrel between the deceased and the appellant,
nor any instance of the appellant physically assaulting her
daughter. She admitted to being unaware of the reasons behind
Mohini’s decision to jump into the well.
PW/3 Phoolchand is a motbir witness. PW/4 Sohan, the
deceased’s brother, stated that the deceased had previously
mentioned her husband’s alcohol consumption and acts of violence
against her. He confirmed that she had returned to her maternal
home for medical treatment but subsequently went back to her in-
laws’ house on the same day she took her life. In cross-
examination, he conceded that his sister had not been mentally
stable.
PW/5 and PW/12 Dhulla, the father of the deceased, reiterated
that Raju, the accused, frequently drank alcohol and physically
assaulted Mohini, attributing her suicide to these actions. He
echoed the claims made by Smt. Bhanwari Bai.
PW/6 Bheru lal is a motbir witness while PW/7 Basanti, the
deceased’s sister, reported that after an initial period of happiness
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (8 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
post-marriage, the accused began to physically abuse the
deceased, leading to her suicide. PW/8 Devi Lal was declared
hostile. PW/9 Onkar lal is a motbir witness, and PW/10 Devi Lal,
the maternal brother of the deceased, asserted that the accused
often quarreled with her, and due to this harassment, she
committed suicide. However, he noted in cross-examination that
the deceased was mentally unwell and prone to quarrels. PW/11
Phoolchand, a distant relative of the deceased, corroborated the
account of the appellant’s alcohol consumption and abuse leading
to her suicide. PW/13 Narayan Lal, another distant relative, also
asserted that Raju beat Mohini, resulting in her decision to take
her life. PW/14 Mangi Lal, a neighbor, indicated that Mohini’s
suicide was a consequence of disputes and beatings by the
appellant. PW/13 Madhuri Verma served as the investigating
officer.
In defence, three witnesses were examined. DW/1 Sohan, a
neighbor, recounted that the deceased had previously eloped with
one Mangi Lal, but during panchayat proceedings, when asked
with whom she wished to reside, she stated her preference for
Raju. DW/2 Manohar served as a Panch during the panchayat
meeting. DW/3 Suresh, the son of the deceased, testified that his
father neither consumed alcohol nor physically abused his mother,
expressly denying any claims stating that his father’s actions led
to her suicide.
From the evidence on record, it is apparent that while the
accused may have frequently quarreled with and physically
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (9 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
assaulted the deceased, there is no indication or supporting
material that demonstrates the appellant explicitly provoked,
encouraged, or instigated Mohini to take her own life. Harassment
in and of itself does not constitute abetment in the absence of
clear evidence indicating that the accused’s actions were intended
to incite the victim to commit suicide. The alleged conduct does
not fall within the definitions of “incitement” or “instigation.” In
cases of suicide, a mere allegation of harassment is inadequate;
there must be clear evidence of actions by the accused that
directly compel the individual to take such a step, and these
actions must occur proximate to the time of the incident.
The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long
settled was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab Reported in 1 (2004) 13
SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:
“12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating
a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a
thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that
mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing
of that thing. More active role which can be described as
instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required
before a person can be said to be abetting the
commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has
observed that the courts should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and
the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of
finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had
in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.
If it transpires to the court that a victim committing
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (10 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life quite common to
the society to which the victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and differences were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given
society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court
should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the
accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide
should be found guilty.”
Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.,
Reported in 2 (2007) 10 SCC 797, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as
follows in para 6:
“6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The
offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence
provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing
when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or
(2) engages with one or more other persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3)
intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing. These things are essential to complete
abetment as a crime. The word “instigate” literally
means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by
persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in
the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides
that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of
abetment and there is no provision for the punishment
of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished
with the punishment provided for the original offence.
“Abetted” in Section 109 means the specific offence
abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of
which a person is charged with the abetment is normally
linked with the proved offence.”
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (11 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West
Bengal Reported in 2009 7 Supreme 289, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that:-
“15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and
also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to
find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without their being any
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on
the part of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and
in the commission of the said offence, the person who
is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must
have played an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged
with the said offence must be proved and established
by the prosecution before he could be convicted under
Section 306 IPC.
17. The expression ‘abetment’ has been defined under
Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted
above. A person is said to abet the commission of
suicide when a person instigates any person to do that
thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (12 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC.
Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is
committed pursuant to and in consequence of
abetment then the offender is to be punished with the
punishment provided for the original offence.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State,
however, clearly stated before us that it would be a
case where clause thirdly’ of Section 107 IPC only
would be attracted. According to him, a case of
abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under
Section 107 IPC.”
The scope and ambit of Section 107 of IPC and its co-relation
with Section 306 of IPC has been discussed repeatedly by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of different High
Courts. In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
and another Reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed as under:-
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused
to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and
the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that
in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that
act must have been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed suicide.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno
and Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police Reported in AIR 2022 SC
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (13 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
4994 observed as under :-
“This Court has time and again reiterated that before
convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal
Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts
and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the
victim had left the victim with no other alternative but
to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind
that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement
to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation
of harassment without their being any positive action
proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the
Accused which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian
Penal Code is not sustainable.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in another case of Mohit Singhal
Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 3578/2023)
dated 01.12.2023 has observed as under :-
“9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in
Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question
is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to
commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be
instigation in some form on the part of the accused to
cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the
accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to
commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such
intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such
a position under which he or she has no choice but to
commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close
proximity to the act of committing suicide.”
Recently, in the case of Prakash and Others v. The
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (14 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 INSC
1020 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-
first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the
abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order
to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must
necessarily be proved that the accused person has
contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some
direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or
involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in
Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well
established. To attract the offence of abetment to
suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or
indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by
the accused, which must be in close proximity to the
commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation
or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the
commission of suicide and should put the victim in such
a position that he/she would have no other option but to
commit suicide.
…
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that
instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do “an act”. It has been held that in order
to satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to that effect
or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence, however,
a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the
facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (15 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.
…
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that
in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It has been held that since the
cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence
of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would
be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s)
of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court
further observed that a mere allegation of harassment
of the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there is such action on the part of the accused
which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court
also emphasised that such an offending action ought to
be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further
clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It
was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of
such nature where the accused intended nothing more
than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular
case may fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide, however, if the accused kept on irritating or
annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the
deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case
may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held that
owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected
and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions
are dealt with differently by different persons, each case
is required to be dealt with its own facts and
circumstances.
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (16 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
…
26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person
is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide.
However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in
order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the
two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other
so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide
by the deceased being a direct result of the act of
instigation by the accused person.
27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra)
reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such
intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to
push the deceased to such a position under which the
person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court
held that the incident which had allegedly driven the
deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior
and even the suicide note had been written three days
prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide
and further, there was no allegation that any act had been
done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity
to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
“11.In the present case, taking the complaint of the
third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as
correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants
instigated the deceased to commit suicide by
demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the
third respondent from her husband by using abusive
language and by assaulting him by a belt for that
purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more
than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no
allegation that any act was done by the appellants in
close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of
imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can
amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (17 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble
due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence
punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out
against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of
their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the
process of law.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of
Haryana, observed as follows:-
“20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano
Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred
decisions rendered in context of culpability under
Section 306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45)“45. … It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission
of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to
the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which
led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not
sustainable.”
Recently, in the case Lamxi Das vs The State of West
Bengal & Ors. Reported in 2025 INSC 86 the Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed that:-
“14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant
along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure
on the deceased to end the relationship between her and
Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased’s family that was
unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (18 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu
Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of
direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a
remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she
cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain
the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act
that creates an environment where the deceased is
pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of
Section 306 IPC.”
Upon reviewing the aforementioned judicial precedents,
it is evident that no allegations have been presented against the
petitioner that substantiate a motive for abetting the suicide. In
the absence of a plausible motive, coupled with the absence of
any indication of ill intent in the relationship between the accused
and the deceased, the charges may be deemed unfounded.
Moreover, if there is no evidence demonstrating that the accused
played an active role in the circumstances leading to the suicide–
such as engaging in abusive conduct or issuing threats–the Court
is inclined to dismiss the charge. Mere instances of harassment or
arguments that do not directly correlate with the act of suicide are
insufficient to establish the standard of abetment required under
the law.
In the present case, even when considering the allegations
contained in the First Information Report (FIR) and the testimony
of witnesses at face value, it cannot be conclusively determined
that the appellant instigated the deceased to take her own life.
Therefore, this Court holds the view that the trial court erred in
convicting the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, as the requisite elements of instigation and motive for
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20419] (19 of 19) [CRLAS-532/2018]
abetment have not been convincingly demonstrated. As such, the
conviction should be overturned in the interests of justice.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned
judgment and order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in
Sessions Case No. 171/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
appellant is acquitted from the said offence.
Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C. the accused appellants are directed to forthwith furnish
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each and a surety bond
in the like amount before the learned trial court within a period of
one month, which shall be effective for a period of six months to
the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition
against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants, on
receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
The record of the trial court, if any, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
69-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:52:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link